volkris @volkris@qoto.org
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
@taco well, the obvious alternative is a nonfunctional Congress and a government shutdown.
That's what the Dems seem to be choosing, though, so enjoy the popcorn, I guess.
Maybe stock up because things would get weird without a federal government in operation?
@ncw413 well that 8 and the 208 Democrats that voted alongside them.
@lauren I have a lot of patience, don't care about the politics of it, and I won't be sad about being voted out if they don't like how I do things.
Hat in the ring!
Yep. And I'd encourage everyone to check the voting roll to see if their representative voted for this shut down.
Here's the roll:
https://clerk.house.gov/evs/2023/roll519.xml
@drrjv she often seems to ask questions that come across as someone not familiar with the case material, who didn't do their homework and read the briefs.
That might be good for journalists who need to be the voice of the people, asking questions that have straightforward answers, but it's concerning when they're coming from a judge in the process of working on a case.
She often seems like she should have a better understanding of the case before she starts spending time asking such basic questions.
@cliftonmr you are incorrect :)
Speakers don't get to just set up rules on their own, unilaterally. The House has a running set of rules that have been agreed to by the entire chamber.
So no, he didn't set the rules this way.
@Nonilex right, and then McCarthy went on to list the conservative positions that Gaetz voted to squash, from reining in spending through border security.
He didn't just make the bald accusation. He provided examples to back his claim.
@Nonilex well... they did
@jamesmarshall what?
In this vote the Democrats voted with the GOP extremists.
volkris
boosted
just a reminder that the Nobel Prizes are being announced this week so if you get a phone call from country code +46, don't let it go to voice mail or they'll move along to the next best person.
@carolleisa wow, what a moron.
But then, the CFPB should have never been founded on such shaky legal terms in the first place, and it's not like Warren was a powerful politician in a position to fix these issues since or anything.... right?
@mnutty well you're wrong :)
The fundamental design of the US government involves checks and balances wherein the executive has to constantly ask the representatives of the people for permission to execute, to act sometimes against people when it comes to law enforcement and to generally gain authorization to redirect society's resources in directions that are hopefully beneficial.
The shutdown was a creation of the idea that the president isn't a dictator, that he is restrained by the democratic process.
EVERY limit on budgetary authority contains a threat of a shutdown as the president cannot legally spend money without authority.
This is core to civics, core to the design of the US government.
In a chain without privacy (post? no, simultaneous) the evidence of innocent is obvious and out in the open and incontestable.
That's a feature.
YES if you want to hide your transactions then don't use a system that puts everything out in the open. That's just common sense.
But like anything else on the internet, or in normal life, a person might decide that convenience or value or whatever else outweighs privacy for some transactions, and from time to time will make that trade.
The open ledger proves innocence in this case. That has value!
You're stating that the states have equal representation.
You're layout out exactly what I'm pointing out.
Every state has exactly the same two representatives.
The incentive is to seek re-election.
Each member is to do his best to do what his constituents would want him to do, and hopefully that will lead to good outcomes. But in the end it's up to voters who decide who to empower and who to re-empower based on their performances.
@SteveThompson wow, the article accuses justices of playing fast and loose even as it itself engages in exactly that.
For example, concluding that the organization doesn't represent real people because of where and when it filed paperwork? The one has nothing to do with the other.
Mainly, though, this is a giant case of begging the question.
I get that the author wishes for different outcomes. Understandable! But this is not the way to get there.
it does get clicks, though. Thanks Slate.
@hulavikih I say this as an open borders kind of guy who WANTS to see more immigration, but there's a lot to be skeptical of in this article, a lot of loose ends that make the proof pretty weak.
For example, the highlighted comparisons against 2017 estimates are quadrupley suspicious as they are 1) relative to 2) an estimate from 3) many years ago 4) before the majorly disruptive pandemic.
Unfortunately I don't think many are going to have their minds changed by this article.
Perhaps USA Today forced them to cut a lot for brevity and they cut too much.
@vy at this point mainly because you don't seem to be willing to provide any solid support for the claim.
That does lead to me not thinking that you're correct.
That you'd rather deflect into psychoanalysis of me just further solidifies that impression.
@politico This rhetoric about bailing out #McCarthy is a bit disingenuous.
If the House wants to keep him as speaker they can. If they want to shut down business in the chamber they can do that too.
To focus on this drama about a bailout is to kind of distract from the real implications of members voting to shut down the legislative process when there's so much that needs to get done.
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
volkris's choices:
